Download The Import of Retail Cigarette Merchandising

Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 17 October 2007
More than meets the eye: on the importance of
retail cigarette merchandising
Richard W Pollay
Tob. Control 2007;16;270-274
doi:10.1136/tc.2006.018978
Updated information and services can be found at:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/16/4/270
These include:
Rapid responses
One rapid response has been posted to this article, which you can access for
free at:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/16/4/270#responses
You can respond to this article at:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/eletter-submit/16/4/270
Email alerting
service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at
the top right corner of the article
Notes
To order reprints of this article go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform
To subscribe to Tobacco Control go to:
http://journals.bmj.com/subscriptions/
Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 17 October 2007
270
SPECIAL COMMUNICATION
More than meets the eye: on the importance of retail cigarette
merchandising
Richard W Pollay
...................................................................................................................................
Tobacco Control 2007;16:270–274. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.018978
Point-of-sale activity is important enough to get the attention of
the senior management of transnational firms and to be the
subject of sophisticated research aimed to realise ‘‘intrusive
visibility’’ better through creative design, command attention
and convey brand imagery. The result of this is the promotional
‘‘positioning’’ of products, and the creation of both friendly
familiarity and perceived popularity. The intended results
include increased sales of cigarettes as a product or ‘‘category
growth’’.
L
avack and Toth1 called our attention to the importance of
point-of-purchase (POP) promotion or retail merchandising, the total cost of which now commands an impressive
85% of the whopping total of over US$15 billion spent in
promoting cigarettes in the US. Like them, I have reviewed
corporate documents in the course of preparing expert opinion
for the governments of Canada,2 UK3 and Ireland.4 My
experience supplements theirs as I reviewed many British
American Tobacco (BAT) documents from around the world,
and also reviewed the retail merchandising textbook and trade
literature. Although not in major disagreement, I fear that
Lavack and Toth might leave the erroneous impression that
competition for market share is the sole intent and effect of
retail promotion. On the contrary, point-of-scale (POS)
promotions, like other forms of advertising, are carefully
crafted, creatively executed, well-financed, well-researched
promotional efforts supervised by senior management and
aimed at realising intrusive visibility to convey brand imagery
(to the extent allowed) with the goals of enhancing category
image and category growth.
DEFINITIONS AND FUNCTIONS OF POS
POS or POP merchandising displays and signage are clearly a
medium of advertising and are explicitly referred to as such in
the title of the relevant global trade association, the Point of
Purchase Advertising International (POPAI). One text comments that ‘‘Displays should accomplish the five steps of
selling, just as advertising and personal selling should’’. The
five steps mentioned are as follows: (1) attract attention, (2)
arouse interest, (3) create desire, (4) build confidence and (5)
direct action.5 Industry documents offer similar ideas.
The purposes of POS are multiple. On one level, POS
materials are designed to attract attention and to enhance
brand images. On another level, they are used to convey the
‘‘presence’’ of the brand to consumers, to create the perceived
popularity of brands, and hence of smoking. These serve the
ultimate strategic goals of differentiating brands from one
another so as to minimise competitive substitution and the
associated price competition that squeezes profitability.
The purpose of POS promotion, like other advertising, is to
sell, not to convey material information, contrary to common
claims in litigation. The functional purposes of POS materials
www.tobaccocontrol.com
were articulated in one 1979 BAT document: (1) to inform the
consumer of the presence of the brand; (2) to promote
recognition of the brand; (3) to generate interest and
excitement about the brand; and (4) to stimulate trial purchase
and re-purchase.6 It is noteworthy that the provision of
information about the physical properties of the product, its
ingredients or the performance characteristics of the brand,
much less its risks or probable health consequences, was not an
objective of POS marketing.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
As Lavack and Toth noted, the management of cigarette-selling
firms has been spurred to pay closer and closer attention to
retail promotion by regulation. In-store activity has been of
ever-growing importance since at least 1970, as a consequence
of restrictions on other means of promoting sales. For example,
BAT took the view in 1970 that a ‘‘key sales executive’’ needed
to study merchandising:
[T]he role of merchandising is likely to become increasingly
important in the event of ad restrictions, and considerably
more attention is, therefore, being given to this activity, both
in Millbank and a number of associated companies. ... The
main purpose of these activities are ... (c) to create conditions
which give an immediate stimulus to purchase at point-ofsale ... It is therefore recommended that a key sales executive
should be appointed to study the subject of merchandising
...7
Twenty years later, in 1991, senior BAT executive Paul
Bingham stated:
So in a market where no promotion of cigarettes is allowed,
you could expect to see the following ... more efficient use of
the trade, and in-store communications, i.e. permanent
merchandising material and point of sale temporary material
(e.g. stickers). The aim is to create a better impact—to let the
retail environment communicate the values of the product
more effectively.8
Note that this refers to the product (cigarettes) not to the
brand (eg, Marlboro). Two new transnational positions were
created in 1993, presumably within each operating region, in
support of in-store marketing: Regional Trade Marketing &
Distribution Manager and Regional Merchandising Manager
(see Pedlow, 8 at 500316641).
A multivolume manual was developed in the early 1990s, for
the entire global operation of BAT that ‘‘selected the best
Abbreviations: BAT, British American Tobacco; ITL, Imperial Tobacco
Company Ltd; POP, point of purchase; POS, point of sale; POPAI, Point of
Purchase Advertising International, Washington DC, USA
Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 17 October 2007
More than meets the eye
practices from the field of in-store marketing and applied it to
the tobacco industry. It can be used as a tool to train and
develop personnel as well as provide guidelines to implement
more effective in-store marketing’’.9 The manual consisted of
four books covering in-store marketing, merchandising, promotion and providing a catalogue of BAT-approved merchandising. The first three books had ‘‘full distribution to all
operating companies and field forces’’ (see BAT,9 at
500316629). Despite this wide distribution, to my knowledge,
not one of these three books has yet been produced in litigation,
even that focused on POS issues.
HIGH-TECH POS RESEARCH
BAT suggested three types of research to evaluate POS effects,
before, during and after an operation, and suggested that
measurements and targets could include awareness, trial,
brand usage, believability, comprehension, interest, attitudes
and over-the-counter sales.10 In 1972, BAT felt the need to do its
own practical research effort. ‘‘Merchandising and promotions.
The biggest problem in this area is to measure and assess the
effectiveness of merchandising, in terms of cost and obtaining
objectives, and this must be a priority area for further work’’.11
BAT stated in 1979:
Maximum perceptual recognition should be achieved at
point-of-sale by the appropriate pack style and design, by
dynamic display layout, and by point-of-sale advertising
materials ... All these factors should be the subject of
continuous research. To this end, we should seriously
consider the merits of setting up experimental in-stores so
that, for example, label designs, pack sizes, POS materials,
etc. can be evaluated. (see BAT,6 p 6)
Two very high-tech devices have long been used to research
displays by BAT on behalf of its operating companies: (1) a
tachistiscope to flash visuals at high speed (short duration) to
study how readily displays could be apprehended and (2) an
eye gaze camera to monitor eyeball movement when encountering displays. In 1982, BAT’s Project Bristol used eye gaze
monitoring equipment to study how ‘‘consumers visually
interact with their environment’’. The planned analysis
included the effects of shop window displays.12 In 1986, BAT
used a tachistiscope to assess the eye-catching qualities of
various designs when amassed. It was judged, in the executive
summary, that ‘‘... the style of tachistiscopic testing reported
here represents a high time/cost effective addition to the
process of pack development. It allows the assurance that the
various symbolism carried by the pack is achieving the desired
effect in terms of impact’’.13
The Psychology Group of BAT’s Market Research operation
contracted at least 18 months of research on the efficacy of
POS, further adapting the eye gaze equipment. ‘‘This technique
makes use of an eye-gaze monitor to make the measurements
and an infra-red technology and computorised [sic] digitization
to analyze the results. By examining the routes of tracking over
the display the output of the analysis provides a cumulated
picture of the visual hot spots on the display. With this
information it is possible to better position our brands on the
gantry in order to receive the maximum amount of visual
attention’’. Because the technique was complex, this research
was conducted by Charter Research Associates, with the aim to
produce ‘‘a handbook providing guidelines on maximizing the
potential of the POS display’’ for use by all operating companies
in diverse jurisdictions. Subjects were drawn from both the
UK and the Far East to understand better whether reading
styles affected eye patterns while shopping and to help
make this relevant to Asian as well as to Western cultures.14
271
Like the merchandising manuals, this research by Charter
Research Associates has not yet been located despite considerable effort.
INTRUSIVE VISIBILITY
BAT stated in 1970:
Tobacco products must be positioned so that they will be
easily visible, readily accessible to shop assistants and
displayed in such a way as to generate a strong impulse to
buy. A special in-store promotion will be most effective if it is
positioned so that it can be seen by the customer before he
actually reaches it. … By adjusting shelf-heights and by the
use of shelf extenders, shelf-talkers, arrows, etc., it is possible
to make facings stand out to give additional impact. …
Directional arrows, day-glow material, flashes, stars and
similar eye-catching methods can be used to attract the
attention of specific brands or temporary offers. ... With
these and other aids, the trained merchandiser can bring an
additional attraction quickly and cheaply to his product
situated in a market stall, vending machine or in the tobacco
department of a large supermarket ... Pictures and slogans
should be kept to a minimum and be placed near the product
but designed to be clearly visible at a distance from which
the customers will normally view it.15
Similarly, Philip Morris stated in 1991:
Key Point: We should have Marlboro (and other PM brands)
positioned in the store to take advantage of the impulse
shopper. ... Where are the best spots for promotional offers,
POS, etc.? We are after intrusive visibility.16
Similarly:
‘Eye Level is Buy Level’ because items placed at eye level are
more likely to be purchased that those on higher or lower
shelves. … Place posters in line with the main customer flow
into the shop. Look for uncluttered locations to gain
maximum visual impact for the poster. Place posters at eye
level. In-shop, position posters in main traffic flow from point
of entry to point of purchase or place in uncluttered position
near point-of-purchase or place material above eye level if it
can be seen at a distance.10
CREATIVE DESIGN
Modes or types of POS advertising include banners, displays,
posters, easels, shelf signs, streamers, wall units, window
displays and cards, floor stands, dump bins, counter-top units,
illuminated signs, cash register tools (eg, change trays,
customer merchandise dividers, receipt coupons and message
imprints), shopping carts and baskets, end-of-aisle displays,
racks, gantries, kiosks, overhead hangers, price cards, interactive units, aisle directories, waste baskets, mechanical
product dispensers, ashtrays, closed circuit television and radio
broadcasts, electronic scrolling ads, clocks, ‘‘hours open’’
signage, carpets and floor mats, laser projections onto floors
and walls, oversized mock-ups of packets, newspaper and
magazine racks, etc. New computer and projection technologies
are being employed to create displays with interactivity,
customisation of messaging, dynamic and vivid illuminated
images. For another example, see the video monitors at the
ready in fig 1.
www.tobaccocontrol.com
Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 17 October 2007
272
Figure 1 Intrusive visibility. Cash register in an unneeded branded box,
repeated back lit overhead signage, and two video terminals provided by
the tobacco firm. (Ireland 2006)
The creation of advertising within regulatory restraints can
serve as a goad to creativity. Prohibitions and limitations
‘‘should not be allowed to discourage the cigarette advertiser,
but rather exhilarate him to be able to meet the new confining
conditions (of 1972) more effectively than one’s competitors is
a challenge to creativity and ingenuity’’.17 In 1998, shortly after
the signing of the US Master Settlement Agreement, ‘‘RJR
provided elegant display racks for Camel, Winston and Doral
brands, while B&W splurged on displays for Kool and Lucky
Strike, including an elaborate guitar wall display for Lucky
Strike’’.18 In 1999, POPAI awarded its ‘‘Permanent Display of
the Year’’ award to RJ Reynolds Tobacco for its Camel trade
store program.19 New eye-catching technologies are also
employed, such as the translucent cigarette packs with lightning dancing inside used by BAT’s American subsidiary, Brown
& Williamson, for their Kool brand. This ‘‘lightning pack’’
display won Kool an Outstanding Merchandising Achievement
Award from the Point of Purchase Institute.20 The new ‘‘Power
Walls’’ in Canada contain a diversity of design elements as seen
in fig 2.
CONVEYING BRAND IMAGERY
With ever more regulations, ‘‘agreements’’ and voluntary
restrictions on conventional forms of tobacco advertising,
‘‘The biggest promotion issue becomes how to build image
Pollay
with little more than tombstone ads. It is the biggest marketing
dilemma of the century, and the solution will be on-premise
promotion, coupled with highly targeted direct marketing’’.18
In Canada, POS materials were developed in the 1990s by
most major brands to convey their brand imagery. The 1996
Communication Plans for the Player’s brand specified that
‘‘merchandising must reflect youthfulness and be contemporary’’, and was recognised as having the ability to ‘‘aid in the
development of a highly image-driven campaign’’.21
Historically, the brand image was more fully described as
‘‘youthful self-expression of freedom and independence and
self-reliance/inner confidence’’.22 Similarly, the Belvedere brand
was positioned as ‘‘youthful, fun, informal, casual, modern and
sociable’’.23 Therefore, the ‘‘Belvedere merchandising ‘look’
should communicate its desired positioning elements as young,
fun, informal and sociable’’.24 Imperial Tobacco Company Ltd’s
Plans for Matinee in 1997 called for merchandising activities
‘‘to reflect the desired imagery’’ with communication that
‘‘reinforces the trademark’s attributes (modernity, popularity)
and maintain current perception of femininity, mildness as well
as communicating self-indulgence and relaxation’’.25
Canadian marketing documents, authored while the federal
legislation tightened controls on media advertising, show that
retail activities sought to use fonts, colours, graphic elements
and display design to convey various brand images or brand
personality traits, such as classy, elegant, fashionable, informal,
sociable, young, fun, distinctive, international, modern, contemporary, high tech, a ‘‘wellness’’ product, masculine, macho,
independent and rugged.
The BAT Global Policy was to use POS materials to
‘‘strengthen brand image’’. The entire in-store efforts of BAT
were governed by the global standards for consistency and
quality in message, signage and brand representation. These
standards were to ensure that all BAT efforts around the globe
‘‘must reflect, add to and strengthen the brand’s image’’ (see
BAT,9 p 1.13 or 500316640).
PRESENCE AND PERCEIVED POPULARITY
In 1986, Imperial Tobacco, BAT’s Canadian operation in
Montreal, Quebec, initiated Project HARPO, almost certainly
named after the mute Marx Brother. No complete research
report for this effort has yet been located, but Project HARPO
anticipated regulatory restrictions that ‘‘would virtually eliminate our traditional means of expressing lifestyle positioning’’,
as well as the possibility of ‘‘the loss of conventional image
material in all media (retail included). ... [T]hese interventions
would severely impede our ability ... to influence market
presence and perceived popularity’’.26
Subsequently, ITL felt that ‘‘popularity will take on an even
larger role than it has today and the job of communicating it
will be located almost exclusively in the retail environment.‘‘27
By 1992, it was noted that ‘‘regulatory imposition has also
affected the retail environment. By the end of next year, all
brand/trademark imagery communication will be disallowed.
Consequently, the role of the store as image carrier will change
substantially. In future, the store’s most vital function will be
generating presence’’.28
CATEGORY GROWTH
Figure 2 The new ‘‘power walls’’ in Canada displaying a diversity of
design elements.
www.tobaccocontrol.com
The POPAI official textbook states: Point-of-purchase promotions have been found to have a significant influence on
consumer shopping behavior..’’. After gaining understanding of
consumers, ‘‘point-of-purchase professionals can then exploit
these consumer decision processes and increase product category or
brand sales’’.29
The historical role of marketing was to offer ‘‘support of
smokers and the smoking habit, and try, at least, to maintain the
Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 17 October 2007
More than meets the eye
Figure 3 Conveying brand image using only brand element. Obviously
promoting Marlboro though not babelled as such.
incidence of smokers in the population, as well as increase daily
consumption’’. In the conclusion to this document, the
following goal is reiterated:
The marketing perspective should be broadened ... specifically towards maintaining the smoking habit at current
levels, and if possible to increase those levels. We should not
rest content with the traditional role of marketing, which aims
to increase market share.30
The stated objective of BAT’s global policy and practice
standards for retail activity circa 1993 includes: ‘‘To achieve longterm dependable growth of the category and our brands. Use of
innovative in-store marketing techniques by trade channels will
help achieve our growth objectives’’ (see BAT,9 p 1.10). Later
POS communication is stated as yielding enhanced brand
image and enhanced ‘‘category image’’ and ‘‘category
growth’’— that is, cigarettes as a group look more appealing
and more are sold as a result (see BAT,9 p 1.29).
DISCUSSION
Given the regulation of cigarette advertising in conventional
media, cigarette marketing strategy has been paying more and
more attention to retailing or POS merchandising. Given its
importance and the resources at their disposal, this attention
has involved senior management, international coordination
and substantial sophisticated research efforts. This has resulted
in deploying creative displays, with very substantial budgets
spent to buy the continuing cooperation of retailers.
The fact that the retailers are being handsomely paid should
not be overlooked. The fact that they need to be paid strongly
suggests that the size and nature of the displays and signage
that the tobacco firms seek to install are more substantial than
the retailers’ natural inclination without this financial inducement. This indicates that the racks, gantries and other
dispensing equipment are more than what retailers find
necessary to handle the logistics of inventory and dispensing.
It also suggests that the displays and signage are more than the
retailers would normally deploy, given the sales volume and
profit margins.
This heavy spending could be the result of indisciplined
competitive spending. The difficulty with this explanation is
that tobacco is definitely not an indisciplined industry. Also,
this sort of heavy spending and massive displays occurs even in
markets dominated by one or a few firms characterised by
gentlemen’s agreements, if not outright collusion. The heavy
spending on retail displays by a monopoly or oligopoly is understandable as an investment, however, if this spending assists in
the recruitment of new smokers, the future of the industry.
Because consumers use the retail presence as an indicator of
how popular products are, a substantial oversized display
conveys that many people are smokers. This is in addition to
273
whatever else might be conveyed regarding special offers,
pricing, brand imagery, etc. This perceived popularity effect
occurs at the brand level, as consumers discern which brands
are the more popular. It also occurs at the product level, as
consumers discern the popularity of cigarettes by their
centrality and predominance in the retail milieu. This perceived
popularity effect would occur even if all firms (for the sake of
argument) had only market share intentions for their spending
on displays.
Note, also, that this perceived popularity effect and its
contribution to the total category sales occur even if regulation
restricts the ability of firms to convey brand imagery, but do not
otherwise restrict their retail presence. It is constructive to
restrict the conveyance of brand imagery in POS advertising, as
in other media, lest cigarettes be romanticised and made
particularly appealing, but doing only this may be insufficient,
however necessary. Similarly, regulation that does not restrict
the use of brand elements will be relatively ineffective, even if
brand names are banned, as can be seen in fig 3.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the additional corporate documents and
additional trade literature that I have reviewed, I conclude that
retail POS merchandising within the tobacco industry has the
following traits.
Well researched and financed: Trade research undertakings,
while only partially documented, appear to be very sophisticated efforts, designed to create POS materials that are
successful in attracting attention and conveying brand imagery.
The manufacturing of these items, and their deployment in the
retail trade, is fully supported financially.
Crafting brand images, not conveying information: Transmission
of information is rarely the objective of marketing plans for
tobacco, even incidentally, while establishing a noticeable
presence and conveying brand imagery is almost universally
the prime objective. The only exceptions are for brands wanting
their low prices to be noticed. POS materials do not yield betterinformed consumers.
Intended to reassure and recruit: Tobacco/cigarette advertising,
by apparently both intent and consequences, has the function
of simultaneously reassuring existing smokers, lest they quit,
and recruiting new smokers to start. Recruitment of youth as
new smokers is enhanced by POS materials because children
are exposed to cigarette promotion throughout their young lives
with each and every store visit.
With intrusive visibility: If left unregulated, tobacco merchandising in the retail environment may be vivid in design and
intense in density, as the retail venue then becomes the primary
advertising medium for the tobacco industry. Firms can seek,
can well afford and are readily able to obtain the needed
cooperation from retailers. Both design and deployment and
retail POS signage make it prominent to the point where it is
highly likely to be noticed by a very high proportion of store
customers.
Creating perceived popularity: The resulting presence has the
intention and effect of influencing perceived popularity. This
perceived popularity effect is true for individual brands, and
consequently for the product category of cigarettes as a whole.
Thus, in addition to whatever might be communicated about
the differentiated character of various brands, the size and
volume of retail display creates a message to the entire retail
traffic—that is to both smokers and non-smokers—about the
popularity of cigarette smoking. Beyond this, specific brand
images may also convey that smoking is glamorous, part of the
good life, enjoyed by people of social status, etc.
POS has enormous reach: A proliferation of POS advertising
activity may reach a very large fraction of the population,
www.tobaccocontrol.com
Downloaded from tobaccocontrol.bmj.com on 17 October 2007
274
Pollay
What this paper adds
in several countries as to the firms’ marketing practices and the history
thereof.
N
This research was undertaken while preparing expert reports for the federal
governments of Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Supplementing Lavack and Toth (TC, 2006), this paper
provides documentary evidence that retail promotions
intend to increase total cigarette sales, not just market
share for competing brands. This is the result of extensive
sophisticated research and well-funded creative efforts
conveying brand images (to the extent regulations allow)
and the creation of perceived popularity.
Correspondence to: Professor R W Pollay, Sauder School of Business,
UBC, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2; [email protected]
Received 17 October 2006
Accepted 7 February 2007
REFERENCES
essentially everyone who goes to market. It would expose all
shoppers, regardless of age and smoking status, to what are
easily seen as pro-smoking messages and imagery.
POS yields high frequency: Average consumers would be
exposed to these messages repeatedly, every time they shop,
whether through repeat visits to neighbourhood stores or even
if shopping around at various retail establishments. This would
be many, many times a year at the least, and for some people
many times a week.
Shaping perceptions: In-store advertising materials serve the
same functions as traditional advertising materials: the crafted
shaping of perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about the brands
within a product category, and hence inevitably about the
product category itself. Attitudes will change as a function of
mere exposure to branded communications even if these are
nominally without substantive content, because of the
‘‘friendly familiarity’’ effect.
In sum: POP advertising exposes and potentially affects
everyone: the young who grow up seeing tobacco as a benign
cultural commonplace in the market on a par with milk and
bread and come to underestimate its risks; the adult smoker
who is reminded and cued to smoke now and more often; the
occasional smoker who is cued to consume more; the would-be
quitter whose intentions to quit are undermined; and the exsmoker tempted to relapse and resume smoking. Regulation of
both the amount (size) and character (brand imagery) of POS
advertising is, therefore, a legitimate and important component
of the tobacco control strategy, with substantial potential for
advancing public health, particularly in jurisdictions where it is
the predominant mode of sale promotion.
EPILOGUE: TOBACCO FIRMS DROP POS CASE
AGAINST IRELAND
On 31 January 2007, with the trial imminent, the legal
challenge to the Public Health (Tobacco) Acts, 2002 and 2004,
in Ireland, put forth by a number of tobacco companies and
others, was discontinued, at their request, with all costs
awarded to the State. This sudden abandonment of the
litigation challenge to legislation, knowing the evidence like
the above that the judge would see, probably reflected their
judgement that victory was very unlikely and that a loss might
set an international example. The Irish Office of Tobacco
Control can now focus on getting gantries taken out of shops,
POS advertising for cigarettes and tobacco products removed,
and tobacco products placed in sealed containers and out of
view of customers. In their view, this is the most significant
development in tobacco control in Ireland since the introduction of the smoke-free workplaces legislation.
Competing interests: I am a university business school scholar and have
been called often to testify in tobacco litigation to educate judges and juries
www.tobaccocontrol.com
1 Lavack AM, Toth G. Tobacco point-of-purchase promotion: examining tobacco
industry documents. Tob Control 2006;15:377–84.
2 Pollay RW. Point of Sale (POS) advertising of cigarettes: functions, management
and consequences. History of advertising archives working paper 4. 5 (Nov
2004); Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia: 80 pages + and
appendices prepared for the Ministry of Health, Canada).
3 Pollay RW. Witness statement of Richard Warren Pollay (re: Point of Sale
Advertising). BAT et al v. Secretary of State for Health (UK), High Court of
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, History of Advertising Archives Working
Paper 4. 2 (July 2004), Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia,
56.
4 Pollay RW. Witness statement of Prof. Richard Warren Pollay re: Point of Sale
Advertising of Tobacco, a supplemental report on corporate documents, trade
sources and current practices in Ireland. PJ Carroll v. Ireland, July 2006:30
pages+exhibits.
5 Samson HE, WG Little. Visual merchandising: planning and technique, Vol 3.
Place: Southwestern, 1985.
6 BAT. Guidelines on communications restrictions and new opportunities in
marketing. Jesteburg May 1979: 5, http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/
batco/html/14100/14109 (accessed 5 Apr 2007).
7 BAT. Product communication in the context of varying degrees of advertising
restriction: 7. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/13700/13752
(accessed 5 Apr 2007).
8 Pedlow G. Marketing of cigarettes in countries with total Ad bans: notes on
conversation with Paul Bingham, 1991.http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/
batco/html/13200/13217 (accessed 5 Apr 2007).
9 BAT. In-store marketing Manual, nd (,1993). http://tobaccodocuments.org/
health_canada/50031662.html (accessed 19 Apr 2007).
10 BAT. Merchandising, undated. Appendix 2: xv–xvi, Bates 406114627-8.http://
www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/100/109 (accessed 5 Apr 2007).
11 BAT. BAT International Marketing Conference, Vol 12.Montreal, June
1972.Marketing News Supplement No.18; http://www.library.ucsf.edu/
tobacco/batco/html/13700/13710 (accessed 5 Apr 2007).
12 England Grosse Associates (for BAT). Project Bristol: Eye Gaze Monitoring
Study; London: England Associates, year: 1–2. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/
tobacco.batco/html/12700/12739. (accessed 28 June 2007).
13 Miller L. Principles of measurement of visual standout in pack design, BAT Report
No.RD 2039. 1986: 3–4, http:/www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco.batco/html/
500/511. (accessed 28 June 2007).
14 BAT. A cross cultural comparison of visual scanning patterns: 1. http, /www.
library.ucsf.edu/tobacco.batco/html/6700/6755. (accessed 28 June 2007).
15 BAT. Some guidelines for marketing tobacco products in the context of increasing
restrictions on advertising, iii–v.
16 Phillip Morris. Marlboro Medium—reference guide, May, 1991:37.
17 BAT. International Marketing Conference, Montreal, June 1972. Marketing News
Suppl No. 18, Sep 1972: 11–12, http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/
html/13700/13710 (accessed 5 Apr 2007).
18 Spethmann B. When the smoke clears. PROMO/Jul, 1998:2.
19 Donovan RJ, Jancey J, Jones S. Tobacco point of sale advertising increases
positive brand user imagery. Tob Control 2002;11:191.
20 Liljenwall R, ed. The power of point-of-purchase advertising:marketing at
retail.Vol 124. Washington, DC: POPAI, 2004.
21 JPB-29. 1996 Communication plans, (ITL-066):33915.
22 D-222. ITL—marketing plan, 1989;(ITL-431):22844.
23 RF-20; RBH-1131. Strategic marketing plans, Nov, 1994:39736.
24 RF-45; RBH-1128. Marketing plans 1993/94, 41295.
25 JPB-44. 1997 communication plans, (ITL-065):34676.
26 Project HARPO (memo). Nov 1986, within 9900327.pdf at 400929618-20
(parenthetical in original).
27 D-222. ITL—marketing plan, 1989;(ITL-431):22824–5.
28 P-49 Broad Strokes Plan 1992:5421.
29 Ogden JR, DT Ogden. Consumer behavior at the point of purchase. In:
Liljenwall R, eds. The power of point-of-purchase advertising:marketing at retail.
Washington, DC: POPAI, 2004:26–9.
30 Kalhok AI, Short PL. The effect of restrictions on current marketing and marketing
in the future. BAT Report. 1976: 24, at p9, 14 (emphasis added), http://
www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/14100/14107 (accessed 5 Apr
2007).